IDIOT STATEMENT: If you dont want to make it illegal, you support and condone it!

PBA is used to remove a fetus that has suffered death in the womb or which can NOT survive outside the womb.

This is factually inaccurate. The procedure would not be required on a dead fetus in the womb, a simple DNX would suffice. There is absolutely no reason to partially birth a dead fetus and suck its brain out of its skull, unless you are just morbid and sick.
 
Dixie said:
No, I am sorry but I have read the entire statement, and I don't see where they say the procedure is ever required for the health or life of the mother. You are doing what the pinheads do, and interpreting that into the statement, but that isn't what they said.
Click to expand...

The AMA clearly supports an exception for when a Doctor says the safety of the baby is conserned.
 
I've read the statement Super, it doesn't say that the procedure is needed for the health or life of the mother. It just plain doesn't say that! You can read that into the statement if you like, and that is precisely what you are doing, but it clearly does not state what you claim. Sorry!
 
trog... the very site you posted said ...

""The AMA recommends that the prodcedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient."
 
The AMA clearly supports an exception for when a Doctor says the safety of the baby is conserned.

This is so profoundly retarded, I am tempted to just let it pass... no... I can't!

Tell me something, Jarhead... When IS a partial birth abortion the best thing for the "safety" of the baby concerned? Do tell?
 
dixie..."I've read the statement Super, it doesn't say that the procedure is needed for the health or life of the mother. It just plain doesn't say that! You can read that into the statement if you like, and that is precisely what you are doing, but it clearly does not state what you claim. Sorry"

"the procedure not be used UNLESS ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES POSE GREATER RISK TO THE WOMAN. THE PHYSICIAN MUST, HOWEVER RETAIN THE DISCRETION, to make that judgment acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient"

Read the part in caps and tell me how it does not say that.
 
Dixie said:
The AMA clearly supports an exception for when a Doctor says the safety of the baby is conserned.

This is so profoundly retarded, I am tempted to just let it pass... no... I can't!

Tell me something, Jarhead... When IS a partial birth abortion the best thing for the "safety" of the baby concerned? Do tell?
Click to expand...

I am not a Doctor, but if it is never necessary, then the exemption can never be used...

The AMA said...

" The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient."

I agree with the AMA on this one!
 
Dixie said:
No, I am sorry but I have read the entire statement, and I don't see where they say the procedure is ever required for the health or life of the mother. You are doing what the pinheads do, and interpreting that into the statement, but that isn't what they said.
Click to expand...
Dix, you are correct.
 
"The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient."

This is the same argument President Clinton used when he vetoed the bill twice! Its also why many Democrats voted against it.

Its my evidence that, ON THIS ISSUE, it was the Republicans grandstanding at the cost of not having this procedure banned 10 years ealier!
 
The AMA recommends that the prodcedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman.

In other words... NO, we don't approve of this procedure at all! It is dangerous to the health of the woman, and should NEVER be performed. The only possible exception to our complete disapproval, would be if a substantially more dangerous risk existed to the woman. (which it doesn't!)
 
"The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient."


"The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient."


"The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient."
 
Dixie said:
The AMA recommends that the prodcedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman.

In other words... NO, we don't approve of this procedure at all! It is dangerous to the health of the woman, and should NEVER be performed. The only possible exception to our complete disapproval, would be if a substantially more dangerous risk existed to the woman. (which it doesn't!)
Click to expand...



The AMA did not use the words NO or NEVER... IN fact they said it should be left up to individual doctors!
 
"The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient."


"The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient."


"The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient."


THE AMA!
 
The AMA also recommends you not eat shit... it's bad for you! However, if someone is pointing an AK47 at your head, demanding you eat the shit, and you feel your life would be endangered by not eating the shit, then you have their permission to eat shit.... but it's not good for you!
 
Dixie said:
The AMA also recommends you not eat shit... it's bad for you! However, if someone is pointing an AK47 at your head, demanding you eat the shit, and you feel your life would be endangered by not eating the shit, then you have their permission to eat shit.... but it's not good for you!
Click to expand...

And the Congress did not allow for an exemption for that situation!

Dixie what does...""The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient."" mean to you?
 
IN fact they said it should be left up to individual doctors!

And the doctors say it is never a matter of life or health! Case closed!

By the way, the AMA always leaves things to the descretion of the doctors on a case by case basis, they almost universially NEVER make absolute determinations like that. It's a legal and political thing.
 
Dixie said:
IN fact they said it should be left up to individual doctors!

And the doctors say it is never a matter of life or health! Case closed!

By the way, the AMA always leaves things to the descretion of the doctors on a case by case basis, they almost universially NEVER make absolute determinations like that. It's a legal and political thing.
Click to expand...

"The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient."
 
They did not say, The Congress must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient.
 
"And the doctors say it is never a matter of life or health! Case closed! "

WHERE DO THEY SAY THAT???? You have not provide one shred of evidence to support that. Which is WHY the AMA said it should be up to the discretion of the physician.
 
Jarod said:
Do you have a cite to this AMA decision?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you mean the "no indentifiable circumstance"? I came across it somewhere in the readings, but can't find it now. It was back in the timeframe of the original argument circa 1997 when Santorum put up his bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top